Claimer: My Blog, My POV

Occasionally, I will mention my job, my public service activities, and other aspects of my life to offer my readers a better perspective on where I'm coming from. But to be clear:

"The views that I express represent my own opinions, based on my own education and experience, not the opinions of any other entity, party, or group to which I belong. I give these opinions in my individual capacity, as a private citizen, and as someone who gives a good gosh darn about his community, his country, and the truth."

Other Analytics

Monday, July 20, 2009

Health Care Reform: Another Good Idea -- Due Process for Policyholders

I continue to page through H.R. 3200, the House health care reform bill. Section 2746 includes an agreable tip of the hat toward due process and the presumption of innocence: Not only does the proposed law prohibit health insurers from dropping you for anything other than outright fraud, but if they do drop you, you have a right to an independent, third party review to determine whether the insurer can justify dropping you. Until that review is complete, you keep your coverage.

Take your time, reviewers. We policyholders will expect very thorough investigations.

We're not going to get 100% participation from anyone, since the plan allows everyone to keep the coverage they have, if they're happy with it. Indeed, I would prefer the single-payer plan that does get 100% participation from everyone. But I'll tell you this: When they offer the public option, there are strong odds my wife and I will sign up.

Actually, I'm not missing the point, Tim. Congress is not forcing you (or anyone else) to enroll in the public option or to give up any existing coverage.

As for signing on to their policy, I'm with you: I'd like to see the policy Thune, Johnson, and SHS get opened up to public participation. That would be even more competition to encourage private insurers to keep costs down.

Congress is forcing the unisured to sign up for health insurance. My question is would any member of congress willing to give up what they have now to sign up for what they are forcing the uninsured to do. If not, why?

In principle, I also disagree with forcing people to buy insurance. I don't like our state mandate to buy car insurance, either. If the government is going to require us to buy some service, the government might as well offer that service itself and pay for it with our tax dollars instead of creating an artificial market that private insurers can make more profit on.

But Congress isn't forcing anyone to sign up for the public option. They're forcing everyone to get insurance and offering financial help for those who can't afford it.